It seems that Putin overestimated his influence on Trump, who has clearly gone out of control. According to a global survey, there is not a single country in the world whose citizens consider Russia a main ally, and the majority perceive the Russian Federation as a threat.
News Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko Today. Today. Today is July 9. It’s 07:41 in Kyiv right now, and we continue our daily morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Trump Got Offended at Putin Link to heading
Well, let me begin. Yesterday we didn’t mention the word “Trump,” at least not in the main part of our stream. But today we have to. Although, to be honest, I’d really like to forget about the existence of Putin and Trump altogether. Unfortunately, that wouldn’t be entirely right. We may not be ready to forget, but they apparently still remember us. So. This time, overall, the mention of the word “Trump” carries a mostly positive connotation, because his speech yesterday at the National Security Council meeting and his subsequent responses to journalists’ questions were mostly positive in nature.
So what did Trump say? It was a reaction to his talks, a phone conversation with Putin. Trump told the public and the world that Putin is dumping a load of crap on us. To be frank, he said that Putin behaves very politely, openly, but extremely polite. But in the end, it’s all worthless. We hear him say, “I want peace, I don’t want to fight.” And then again, he sends troops, bombs again, pushes forward again. It’s complete deception, and honestly, I’m fed up with it and I’m sick of it, Trump said.
Then he added, he tells me one thing and the next day—bam—strikes on Ukraine again. We can’t just sit and wait while he smiles, shakes hands, and then goes off to kill people. I no longer believe a single word he says. We will respond, and we will respond harshly. And then he explained how they would respond. We are reviewing sanctions; we are looking at everything, no exceptions. And yes, we will continue to give Ukraine everything they need to defend themselves. They are fighting like mad to the end, and they deserve this support.
That, basically, is a brief summary of what was said yesterday. In addition, Trump noted the role of the U.S. in supplying weapons to Ukraine, saying that it is only thanks to American arms that Kyiv didn’t lose the war in three or four days. Which is total nonsense, because there was no American weaponry in the first days of the war. So, Trump once again emphasized that he approved new deliveries of defensive weapons to Ukraine because, according to Trump, Putin is acting wrongly—he is killing too many people. A nice remark—“too many.” As if there’s a certain threshold for how many can be killed. And beyond that—too many.
As for what came up during the phone talks between Zelensky and Trump, this was reported by Maxim magazine, which yesterday, also citing sources in the Trump administration, said that Trump promised Zelensky to immediately send 10 Patriot air defense missiles to Kyiv. Moreover, according to the same source, the White House is pressing Germany to buy Patriot systems from the U.S. for further transfer to Ukraine. This is basically the only viable scheme, since Trump clearly won’t give anything away for free. Well, let him sell—fine.
Additionally, President Zelensky said in his video address yesterday that he has instructed Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to intensify all contacts with the American side. So, it’s clear that we are waiting for results, as these massive attacks indeed pose a serious threat. And first and foremost, Patriot missiles and new Patriot systems would be very, very timely. It’s clear that you can’t cover the entire sky over Ukraine, but at least covering Kyiv, Odesa, and the largest cities seems still possible.
How Russia Is Perceived in the World Link to heading
So overall, I’d say today we mostly have good news—and a bit of analysis. The thing is, yesterday the results of a new survey by the Pew Research Center were published. This is an American organization that conducts global polling alongside Gallup. They are probably on par. It’s a research center whose polls are trustworthy. They conducted surveys across several dozen countries, with quite high representativeness for each. More than two dozen countries were surveyed, and over 30,000 people in various countries. Russia and Ukraine weren’t asked about their own countries, but they were the subject of the questions.
Now, I’d like us to look at the chart—unfortunately, it has a lot of labels and numbers. Let’s take a look at what it shows. I want to comment on some things. I don’t know how clearly it comes through in the picture, but I hope you can make some of it out. Sorry that it’s so small, but that’s how it turned out.
So, what do we see? It’s about identifying the top threats for each country. What I want to highlight—Canada shows a huge success for Donald Trump: 59% see the United States as the main threat. 17% name China, and 11% name Russia—another big win for Donald Trump. Then come Putin’s “successes.” In general, to summarize ahead of time: Russia is perceived as the most threatening to national security. The survey breaks down exactly what kind of threat is meant. Russia is seen as a national security threat by many countries, and in many of them, it’s the number one threat. The United States is seen as an economic threat. But Russia—as a national security threat.
Putin’s major “success” in France: half of all French respondents see Russia as the main threat. In Germany, nearly two-thirds consider Russia the top threat. Hungary shows a surprising result: despite Orbán’s policies, a third of Hungarians—exactly 33%—still consider Russia the number one threat. This shows a clear contradiction between government policy and what people actually think.
Looking ahead, I can say that Hungary is the only country where Russia appears at all as an ally. I won’t show the full ally chart here, but Hungary is the only place where Russia is named as a third-tier ally. In every other country, Russia doesn’t appear as an ally at all—only as a threat. That’s a stunning “success” of Putin’s diplomacy.
In Italy, Russia is the number one threat. In the Netherlands—also number one. In Poland—number one again. In Spain, Russia ranks second, likely due to geographical distance. In Sweden, nearly three-quarters of people see Russia as the number one threat. In the UK, half of all Britons do.
Then we see countries like South Africa—related to the BRICS topic, which we’ve discussed: how stable and cohesive is BRICS? In BRICS countries: in South Africa, Russia is threat number two; in Brazil—threat number three, with China as number two. So BRICS countries see each other as threats. Likewise, Mexico also sees Russia as a threat—although the primary threat there is the United States, mainly in an economic sense.
Again, I want to emphasize: no one sees Russia as an ally, except for Hungary—and even there, only as a distant third-tier ally. For example, in Hungary: their top ally is the European Union. Second is the United States. Russia comes in third. So again, Orbán’s policies sharply contradict the views of the Hungarian population. How this translates into protests—I can’t say for now, but the contradiction is obvious.
Regarding BRICS countries and allies: Brazil sees the United States as its top ally. On the topic of BRICS, again. In reality, India also sees the U.S. as its top ally—35% say so. This shows that the entire anti-American narrative of BRICS contradicts popular sentiment. BRICS is much more a reflection of the agendas of national elites than of their populations. It’s all rather manipulative at the leadership level, with no real grassroots foundation. So it’s essentially a house of cards.
Of course, the size and scale of BRICS require consideration—it’s a platform for leaders to meet, strike deals, negotiate. But there is no deep or fundamental basis for their alliance. We can see this even in surveys like this.
Q&A Link to heading
Well, before I move on to answering your questions, I want to say that today, this evening at 8:00 PM, I’ll try to do the next, fifth episode of the program Trumpophrenia, because there are some very interesting developments happening in that circle of Russian-speaking Trump supporters. I think it will be interesting to analyze. 8:00 PM—episode five of Trumpophrenia. Now, moving on to your questions.
About the Complaints of “Turbo-Patriots” Against Putin Link to heading
A question from an anarchist. For the past three years, discontented voices have been heard in Russia. Lately, quite loudly from some military patriots and others, claiming that the limited military operation is not yielding the desired results. In their opinion, instead of limited, ineffective strikes on centralized military-industrial targets, it is necessary to completely destroy the energy system, infrastructure, bridges, and so on.
So, then. The anarchist asks two questions:
Why did Putin choose such a prolonged, ineffective method of warfare with significant human, material, and financial losses? And the second question: Do you think, given that Trump seems to have tired of diplomacy and decided to resume arms supplies, will Putin dare to take radical action? His recent phrase “The war is entering a new phase” is somewhat unsettling. So, why did Putin choose this drawn-out path? And do you think, dear anarchist, that this is an ineffective method of warfare?
You know, from what I can tell, you’re starting from the assumption that Putin made a choice. That Putin has the resources for some kind of radical actions. But I’m not sure about that. You see, honestly, I don’t see any such resources, except for nuclear weapons. The reason Putin doesn’t use nuclear weapons is clear — it would take things to an entirely different level. There are risks, yes. There’s the possibility of a retaliatory nuclear strike. That would raise the entire situation to a different level of risk.
So then, what other resources does he have? Please name a weapon, other than nuclear, that Putin hasn’t yet used. Talk of total mobilization — well, again, we’ve seen how that ends. People just flee, hide, and for money. Yes, as the embodiment of today’s Russian spirit sings — for money. Go ahead. But that’s it. That’s all.
So, what else does he have to hit with? What else to strike with? He’s using Iskanders, Kalibrs, cruise missiles, drones. What else? What’s left? “Oreshek” — what even is that? It’s unclear. And beyond that — they’ve killed. And then what? What next? So honestly, I don’t really understand what radical resources might exist to change the nature of the war. Putin would love to, but he has nothing left in reserve. Nothing serious.
I mean, what he is doing is terrible. He’s killing people. But all this talk about how “Russia hasn’t even started the war yet, but now it will sign something and begin” — most likely, it’s just scare tactics.
And the second question — I’ve already said, I don’t know what these “radical actions” are supposed to be. This whole thing where he tries to frighten people, saying “we haven’t started yet,” and now Russia will raise an eyebrow — well, they’ve raised eyebrows before, scratched their noses, stuck out their tongues. It’s all happened already. So, yeah.
BRICS Status and Trump’s Threat of Sanctions Link to heading
Leonid Bespalov BRICS is a complete zero. Then why did Trump threaten the member countries with tariffs if they’re so ineffective?
Dear sir! Dear Leonid! I disagree. I’m not sure—are you arguing with someone? I personally don’t consider BRICS a complete zero. BRICS is a group of 10 countries with very substantial economic, human, and military potential. So, it’s not a complete zero. Another matter is that by its nature, BRICS is neither a military alliance nor an economic union. It’s more of a platform for exchanging views. And in this capacity—it exists. But just now, I tried, albeit very superficially, to analyze the level of sociopolitical unity among BRICS countries. And it doesn’t exist, as we’ve just seen based on the surveys. That is, BRICS countries tend to lean more toward the United States, at least judging by public opinion. But politicians—yes, politicians play their own games. But of course, I agree that BRICS is not a complete zero.
On Experts in China’s Economy Link to heading
A question from a subscriber who calls themselves “Real Estate.” It would be interesting to hear from some expert on China’s economy and politics. There’s information suggesting they have huge problems with wealth inequality, with filling up newly built cities, with business activity, and so on. On the other hand, there’s the undeniable fact of China being a global threat, supposedly about to devour everyone and even eyeing America. I’ve spoken with Chinese emigrants who shared the view that yes, it’s all about the political system—people want change—but then again, they’re migrants, looking for a better life. I’d like to untangle this knot of contradictions and understand, in a comprehensive way, what to expect from China in the future.
I agree. I do. Well, you see, I have to communicate with a number of people who know what China is about, who travel there, who are experts on China. But the problem is, it’s like with economics—how does it go? Two economists, three opinions. And here, I don’t know, maybe we need some sort of discussion, because becoming a hostage to a single expert opinion is risky too. I think we need not just one expert, but at least two.
On Articles About Reintegration Link to heading
So, Marat? You’ve probably read, writes Marat, the articles by Aron Leo and Borukh Eskin about possible disintegration. If so, could you comment? From my point of view, writes Marat, although the writing is interesting, the author fails to consider that we live in a different world. While reading, one recalls the “Beautiful Russia of the Future,” the most famous work by Thomas More.
Well, you know. I generally agree with your assessment. These articles about the disintegration of Russia warm my heart too, in a way, because I’m not the only one who believes that such a disintegration is possible and quite likely. That’s good—but what they’re doing there is essentially portraying a “Beautiful Russia,” a beautiful, beautiful post-Russia of the future. I won’t retell the whole thing—the article is quite long—but it discusses the inevitable breakup of Russia, with a large state called “Moskovia” emerging on the ruins. This would include not just Moscow and the Moscow region, but also several regions of Central Russia and the Volga region, plus Leningrad and the Leningrad region—meaning St. Petersburg and its surrounding area. So, it’s a fairly large region—a large country. It turns into a big state, Moskovia, which includes several “Frances” in terms of area and has a population close to 70 million. That’s one large chunk of Russia.
In addition, these two authors paint a picture where the other fragments of Russia are annexed: Yakutia and some other regions go to China; the Caucasus to Turkey; the northwestern regions to Finland and Sweden. Basically, it depicts such a kind of annexation. Parts to Ukraine, etc. The main takeaway is that everything is supposedly going to be fine, with democracy, full demilitarization—all under international oversight. That’s the vision: a “post-post-Beautiful Russia.”
Here’s what I find unclear. First of all, how, without a ground operation and the signing of a full and final act of surrender, will all these fragments fall under the control of some kind of benevolent international force? And what are these “benevolent forces”? The United Nations? I doubt it. The UN has never been involved in this kind of geopolitical redrawing or architectural planning. It’s not their function, and there’s no one there to do it.
Second, NATO? Well then NATO would need to carry out a ground operation, and everything would need to follow the script of how World War II ended. I highly doubt such a scenario is realistic. Then there’s the question of what happens to regional elites. The scenario assumes Russia breaks apart not just along administrative lines into federal subjects, but that we’ll see new formations: Bashkortostan and Tatarstan unite; Moskovia consolidates around Moscow; St. Petersburg and the Volga region unite, etc. I simply don’t understand how this could happen, considering that in the event of a collapse, central power would be eliminated. Because if the central power remains, then there will be no collapse.
If the central government disappears, then the only authority left would be regional governments, which control local law enforcement and will try to secure their own borders. Just like the Soviet Union collapsed along union republic lines—meaning administrative boundaries—and the only authorities left were the local communist parties. So I don’t understand where these regional elites would go, and why they would voluntarily give up power. Regional elites are greedy, predatory, archaic. And how on earth would democratic states be created immediately from these fragments? That’s also unclear.
Lastly, I’d say that this massive Moskovia they envision could, in my view, become the bearer of imperial ideology. Just as Russia, after the Soviet collapse, absorbed and concentrated all the imperial ideas, becoming even more malicious, more imperial, and more aggressive than the USSR, I think if this scenario comes to pass—even if I don’t see how—the Moskovia that remains, this imperial core with its vast territory and foreign bodies like St. Petersburg, the Volga region, etc., would become the new imperial nucleus.
Then there’s this odd idea of “Moscow-Trumpism.” Why would Moscow be the center of this state? I think it’s a dangerous concept—essentially a revival of empire in a smaller, nastier, more aggressive form. If Russia, having become half the size of the USSR, doubled in terms of aggression and menace, then I think Moskovia, being 2.5 times smaller than Russia, will proportionally become more fascist and more aggressive—a sort of deeply red-brown formation.
And why would it give up its army or nuclear weapons? And this idea of handing out regions to neighbors—would the neighbors even want that? Would, say, the northern countries really want a “gift” like the Kaliningrad region? Why? Why would they need such a gift? Why would they want Karelia or anything else? Why would Finland—a peaceful, civilized country—want such a burden?
And most importantly, would the local elites agree to lose their power and join some other country where they’d have to live under new rules? This kind of political engineering seems unconvincing to me. And above all, I don’t see a roadmap for getting there.
So yes, it sounds nice. Just like the Beautiful Russia of the Future. A wonderful project. It’s just a pity it’s unrealizable.
About Masha Gessen and Their Article Link to heading
Alexander Gelman What do you think about The New York Times columnist Masha Gessen and their recent article that caused a bit of a stir in some media outlets?
About the word “their.” The thing is, Masha Gessen, being a non-binary person, requires that people use this pronoun for them. Now, have I just committed a crime? I said it. I used a pronoun for Masha Gessen. The word “she”—but she demands, she demands “they/them,” so that people call her “they.” Well, to be honest, I hope she can’t hear me, so I’ll still refer to her as “she.” I’ll call her Maria Alexandrovna Gessen. That’s it. Well, let her sue me if she’s offended.
So, Maria Alexandrovna Gessen is a very, very experienced person, long and deeply rooted in the American media space. And I say this because she is being accused of antisemitism in that article, but she is experienced enough and knows very well how to write texts following all the rules of political correctness. Therefore, so to speak, she’s put in all sorts of disclaimers everywhere, making sure there’s nothing openly antisemitic. I mean, there are no direct calls to “kill the Jews” in there, of course—not least because she herself is Jewish. But that, by the way, is no guarantee against antisemitism, as we all know. Take Solovyov, for example. In fact, Jewish self-hatred is a fairly widespread thing, just like self-hatred among other ethnic groups.
But the essence lies elsewhere. The point is, if you take the substance and meaning of the article—it is, essentially, a defense of the candidate for mayor of New York, Jordan… Madonna… sorry, my mistake. So, this person—in essence—what the article is doing is defending this mayoral candidate who supports the BDS movement: boycott, divestment, sanctions. Just so it’s clear what we’re talking about here—whom she’s defending.
You see? In an article, for example—and I say this just as an example—you don’t need to say anything directly about supporting Nazism. But if you defend Himmler, then it’s more or less clear what you’re about. If you defend Stalin, you don’t have to say anything about the Gulag or any other things, but it’s clear who you are. So, Maria Alexandrovna—her whole article is a defense of Dani. Who is Dani? He is a far-left politician, on the extreme left flank of the U.S. Democratic Party, who supports the BDS movement and calls Israel’s actions in the Gaza war genocide.
Let’s unpack that—let’s take a closer look at this politician. Maria Alexandrovna Gessen supports him. So let’s unpack this. The statement about genocide—do you understand? That civilians are being killed in this war is well-known. But can that be called genocide? This is a direct comparison to the Holocaust, when Germans were killing Jews. And to assume that Israel’s political and military leadership wants to deliberately kill Palestinians—that either shows a complete lack of understanding of what’s going on, or it’s a blatant lie.
Because if it really were genocide, if Israel’s military and political leadership truly wanted to exterminate Palestinians, it would be very easy to do. They wouldn’t be shouting at the top of their lungs, “Evacuate this area, we’re about to clear it out.” They wouldn’t be dropping leaflets. They wouldn’t be organizing evacuations to preserve lives. They would just herd everyone together and mow them down with machine guns, bomb them—and that’s it. The “final solution to the Palestinian question” would be done in a few days. Is that really so hard to understand?
And those provocateurs who call this genocide most likely understand just how deceitful and slanderous their claims are. That’s one thing. Now, as for this position—this BDS movement—its activists are banned from entering Israel, just so it’s clear. In addition, Germany—I don’t know about other countries, but I know for sure about Germany—Germany officially recognized this movement (it has an acronym, BDS) as antisemitic. So in some countries—I don’t know the full list—this movement is considered antisemitic, but at least in Germany, yes. And in two-thirds of U.S. states, there are laws that restrict or ban the boycott of Israel.
So this figure whom Gessen is supporting would, in many countries, undoubtedly be recognized as antisemitic. But for now, New York supports him. America is the kind of country that elected Trump as president, so that doesn’t mean much.
So Gessen raises the question of the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. But in fact, with her support of Dani, she clearly crosses that line and ends up on the side of an antisemite. So I think this is a problematic article.
What’s the root cause? The root cause is leftism—as a disease, you know? It’s a disease that, if a left-leaning politician can’t hold the line, often metastasizes into a kind of cancer—and from that point on, it’s practically incurable. We’ve seen what happened to someone who started as a seemingly normal environmental activist—young, but with somewhat sensible positions—I mean that circus guy. And then, bit by bit, he got caught up, and the whole thing spiraled. It started with ecology and slid into supporting terrorists—supporting Hamas.
Something similar, in my opinion, is happening with Maria Gessen. A person who started as an active supporter of LGBT rights—as, so to speak, a genuine humanist. And now we see where it’s gone. Now it’s support for open opponents of Israel. And we know what kind of slogans are being shouted by the people Maria Alexandrovna supports: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” And what does “from the river to the sea” mean? It means there is no Israel. That’s it. It’s essentially a denial of Israel’s right to exist. That exact wording isn’t in the article, of course. But her support at the rally—on the square—essentially means just that.
About Parents Who Grew Up in Orphanages Link to heading
So, Nadezhda Kotik. There is a common belief that people who grew up in orphanages make bad mothers and fathers because they had no example of family life, were not loved, and were not taught how to love. I’m putting this criticism of orphanage kids in simple terms, but I think you’ve heard such statements yourself. I completely disagree with this. And here’s why. My mother, born in 1928, grew up in an orphanage. You couldn’t find a better mother.
Well, then Nadezhda talks about how wonderful her mother really was, and I sincerely congratulate her on that. Our mother was a great homemaker and a leader. She writes that orphanage kids aren’t taught anything. Well, her mother’s orphanage friends were also wonderful wives, mothers, homemakers. So what’s the matter? Maybe, back then, children were raised differently in state institutions? Because, according to her mother’s stories, many children learned to do things for themselves, mend clothes, and so on.
I grew up on my mother’s stories about life in their big family, about hardships and sorrows—there was war, occupation, this was Belarus, hunger. But the memories were good. Our mother was kind, honest, hardworking, and fair. She’s been gone for 46 years now. But everything is remembered vividly. Has something changed since then, what do you think?
Dear Nadezhda, You see, each of us has our own memories, our own personal contact with certain parts of life. And that is our uniqueness. But to extrapolate our own perception, our memories, our personal experience with one segment of life onto the entire phenomenon is, of course, not possible.
Now, I haven’t specifically studied this topic, but I can cite some statistics. These are from the General Prosecutor’s Office of Russia. It’s from research done by the Siberian Law University—this is what I know; I haven’t googled or specifically studied the issue, this is just what I know. So:
40% of orphanage graduates commit crimes. About 40% become alcoholics or drug addicts. This is a modern study. Of course, you shouldn’t add these figures together—they are overlapping groups. That is, the 40% who are alcoholics and drug addicts and the 40% who are criminals are overlapping groups—you shouldn’t sum them. 10% commit suicide. Again, these are overlapping groups, probably included in the others. These are data from the Prosecutor General’s Office.
Does this mean that all orphanage children are marked as criminals? Of course not. Of course not. But the likelihood that someone who leaves an orphanage will be poorly adapted to life in society is quite high.
Can a person who grew up in an orphanage become a wonderful wife, an outstanding scientist, or poet, or someone else? Yes, of course. But the probability that he or she will become something else and end up in this Prosecutor General’s Office statistic is quite high.
Now, I don’t have data on the dynamics—how it was back then. As I understand it, your mother, dear Nadezhda, was raised in an orphanage in the 1930s? If I understand correctly? Yes, most likely in the 1930s or 1940s. How the situation has changed—I don’t know. I can only speculate, but that’s a topic for a special study.
But overall, I cannot say that an orphanage is a good start in life—at least not in Russia. I don’t know. Again, I don’t want to offend the memory of your wonderful mother.
So is Russophobia really that unfounded? Link to heading
Is it? Yevgeny Rubio Denis. The question is, is Russophobia really that unfounded? Let me explain with a personal example. I’m 60 years old, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, and I live in Vilnius, where my five school-aged granddaughters also live. When I hear Russian politicians calling for a nuclear strike on Vilnius, I believe them. And as a result, I genuinely fear Russia and Russians. In a word, I am a bona fide Russophobe. Do I deserve condemnation as a superstitious, narrow-minded person who has fallen victim to Russian stereotypes? Are you personally ready to brand me a hardened Russophobe?
You know, Yevgeny Rubio, you’re not going to get that from me. I’m personally not ready to brand anyone, especially not you. So, look, I don’t consider you a Russophobe. Here’s why — you have every right to feel negatively about Russia, its leadership, and the faceless mass you refer to as “Russians.” I emphasize: faceless mass. And to be honest, I share those same feelings. But I don’t consider either myself or you a Russophobe, because—well, what if we change our perspective? Yes, let’s try looking at Russians not as a faceless mass, but as individuals. For example, I’m Russian. Dear Yevgeny, are you afraid of me? I hope not. I mean, I probably don’t look great right now, especially after a sleepless night, but still—afraid of me? Besides, I live in the same city as you and frankly pose no threat, even though I’m Russian, right?
So what sets a Russophobe apart from you or me? We share the same feelings as a Russophobe toward the Russian authorities, the Russian state, the Russian leadership, and that faceless mass that enables Putin to do what he does. But a real Russophobe feels exactly those same things toward every Russian citizen. And we don’t. As far as I understand, neither you nor I—if we change our perspective and look at people as individuals—see Russian citizenship as a marker that makes us, each of us—you, dear Yevgeny, and me—feel hatred, hostility, or fear toward a person just because they carry a passport with that red chicken on it. That’s it. So neither you nor I are Russophobes.
On Informing and Informers Link to heading
So, Vera, what do you think drives people to write denunciations? What role does propaganda play in encouraging informing and informers? They’re just vile people.
Well, the question is somewhat rhetorical, but still, there’s definitely substance to it. I would say—first of all, the anatomy of informing was different during the Stalinist era, when denunciations were often driven by material or property-related motives—like in a communal apartment, someone wanting to take over another’s room. So they’d write a denunciation, get the person arrested, and move into their room. Or say you wanted to push out a boss and take their job—people wrote denunciations and got promoted. So there was a career advancement angle. That kind of thing doesn’t really happen nowadays.
Today, denunciations are typically motivated by other factors. An inferiority complex is a big one. The informer gets a sense of power from writing one. “I wrote a denunciation—look, they arrested the person. Cool.” A feeling of power. Then you have the classic professional informers like Mizulina, for example—very prominent. Hinshtein—another bright example. Solovyov—very vivid informer. So it’s this sense of power: you write a denunciation, the person disappears, and you feel powerful. In some cases, it’s driven by personal animosity toward the target. And in general, there’s this feeling of being part of the fight against an internal enemy—that plays a role too.
So, if you break down the anatomy of informers, that’s pretty much how it looks.
What’s Happening on Gordon’s Channel Link to heading
Vera asks, Could you explain what’s going on with Gordon’s channel? Even decent people start spouting nonsense there. I won’t even mention December 31. One moment it’s Putin with the exact date and time, then Ukraine supposedly got an anti-tank bomb. Arestovych was killed. And so on.
Dear Vera, first of all—well, I do occasionally appear on Gordon’s channel when invited, and I chat with his staff there. But I don’t actually watch the channel myself. Honestly, I can’t recall any particular episodes—there were some high-profile guests that made it hard not to watch—but overall, I don’t really see Gordon as a source of information. So I don’t know what’s happening there, and I can’t assess the scale of what you, dear Vera, are describing.
That said, the reason seems clear to me. Gordon is a populist. And every populist craves sensation. What’s a sensation? You described it: “Arestovych was killed”—sensation. “Arestovych resurrected the next day”—another sensation. “Putin died with the exact date and time”—sensation. “Putin resurrected”—yet another sensation. Fantastic—ratings go up. Dmitry Ilyich is the absolute leader in Ukraine in terms of views and subscribers. That’s the result.
As for the fact that he’s not too selective about how he gets those ratings—well, that’s life. That’s precisely why I don’t treat Gordon’s channel as a source of information. But if I’m invited, I’ll talk to the audience—I don’t see that as shameful.
About Shenderovich’s Interview on Khodorkovsky.live and About Igor Guberman Link to heading
Is that so? Valeria. I regularly watch “The Current Moment” on the Khodorkovsky channel — that’s the regular interview usually recorded on Mondays with Viktor Anatolyevich Shenderovich. Monday was yesterday, July 7th. In the final segment, which is called “The Painkiller,” Viktor Anatolyevich spoke about Igor Guberman, his friendship with him, his talent, and about him as a very, very free person. I agree wholeheartedly. There was this story: I once saw my neighbors taking out books to hand over as waste paper. I managed to save a few of them in exchange for a suitable reward. One of them was a collection by Igor Guberman — it cost me 40 rubles. Back in those days, that was quite a sum. To my shame, I didn’t realize that Guberman’s birthday was just yesterday, July 7th — he turned 89. His book has been very useful to me. Famous, witty, sometimes sad, sometimes desperate, often satirical, funny, sarcastic — in a word, incredibly talented. By the way, I don’t agree with every one of Igor Guberman’s statements, but the book really can be striking in its wisdom. For example, here are some lines:
“Now in the Garden of Ideas it’s dreary, The garden’s ill with spleen and doubt. Only Slavophile dreams still flourish, Reeking of mothballs, loud and proud.”
And another:
“They brim with warlike aspirations, Though nothing’s yet been ratified— From bast shoes sprout sharp hooves, the basis Of Russian soil’s swelling pride.”
And so on.
Wonderful. And I don’t think you need to read every single one of them, but everyone can find something and enjoy it. That’s a particular kind of pleasure I also indulge in from time to time.
And the question: Have you ever met Igor Guberman? What do you think of his work and his political stance?
You know, I haven’t met Guberman, unfortunately — it would’ve been interesting. But really, what does it mean not to have met him? I meet him quite often when I read his work. His “gariki” — that’s a meeting, in fact, that’s the main kind of meeting with an artist, with a poet.
And how do I feel about him? The same as you do: with reverence, with admiration, with deep gratitude. As for his political stance — well, judging by his writing, it’s clearly expressed in his work, since he writes about current events. And his sharpness is directed at the same people, events, and phenomena that we also oppose. There’s nothing in it that divides us, as far as I can tell. And honestly, I don’t care to find out otherwise. His work is enough for me.
Is the World Really Getting Better? Link to heading
Yulia. You say the world is slowly, gradually getting better. Cannibalism, slavery have disappeared—maybe cannibalism is gone. But as for slavery: near the pyramids in Egypt, by the Sphinx, people are selling unique handmade wooden carvings. A whole crocodile family scene costs just $10. Lots of things sell for $1. That’s modern-day slavery.
Dear Yulia, you have a very peculiar idea of what slavery is. And also—
Where have children’s songs gone? Why hasn’t there been another Mozart?
Well, Mozart was one of a kind—both the first and the last. Other composers do appear.
Fine then—where is anything comparable to Christ’s sacrifice? Even a hint of what David did against Goliath? Yes, cannibalism and slavery are evil, but maybe there are other signs of human degradation. I think degradation begins when acts of heroism vanish—Navalny, Skobov, Kushnir. That’s for Russia, or better yet, for “rashka.” But globally, where is the force that holds the world together?
Well, dear Yulia, once again—your idea of slavery is rather unusual. It’s very specific, but still, I think what you call modern slavery is more of a metaphor. Real slavery—well yes, some elements exist, like sexual slavery and so on, but these are isolated crimes, not a systemic institution.
As for Christ’s sacrifice—well, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that was a legend, in my view. But Skobov’s heroism is real. And has the world become worse because there’s no Christ, but there is Skobov’s act of courage? And thousands more—the heroism of people who are, right now, defending Ukraine.
I believe those are true acts of bravery. And among the Ukrainian Armed Forces there are PhDs, artists, poets, programmers—people who absolutely could have avoided going, who could have left in time for another country and enjoyed life and creativity. Instead, they went to the front. Some of them died. Those are real heroes, true acts of valor.
That’s why I think this still exists—and there’s no overall degradation. Yes, undoubtedly, some areas of human life are in decline. But on the whole, if we take the long view—if we look in terms of historical cycles—then no, there is no degradation. What there is, is the slow, difficult advancement of humanism through the thick crust of human history.
On the Issue of the Russian Language in Ukraine and on Regional Languages Link to heading
Is that so? A question from MTS: Igor Aleksandrovich, if there were no problems with using the Russian language and never have been, then why did the Rada pass the law on regional languages? There were some disputes around this law, then it was repealed, unrest began in southeastern regions of Ukraine. The law was reinstated. As I understand it, the problem concerns the use of Russian in Ukrainian state institutions. Could a citizen defend their interests in court using Russian, for example? Did you ever look into this? Denying the existence of a problem when propagandists are exploiting it—do you think that helps the cause?
Dear colleague, again—as I see it, we need to refer to what’s called the Law of Ukraine on Languages. The law on languages in Ukraine stipulates that individuals who do not speak the state language (and the only state language in Ukraine is Ukrainian) have the right to use their native language or a language they are fluent in, and, if needed, can make use of translation services. Period.
So yes, there’s a lot of noise around this issue—but that noise is partly fueled and organized from abroad. Partly. People complain about all sorts of things. Once again, for example—when I was in Ukraine and needed to issue a power of attorney, the notary drew it up in Ukrainian, as required. But I immediately requested a translation into Russian, and the notary certified the Russian-language copy. So I experienced this myself. I’m not a citizen of Ukraine, but all official documentation is mandatorily done in the state language—Ukrainian. However, if needed, you can get a version in any language you like.
This everyday example is quite telling. I’ve said before—this was about 15 years ago. The last time I was in Ukraine was 2014. Before that, I lived there for several months on an extended work assignment. Kyiv was an absolutely Russian-speaking city. Completely.
So here’s the principle: what does “state language” mean? You walk into a store—they greet you in Ukrainian. Always. But as soon as you respond in Russian, they switch to Russian without issue. That’s it. So, you see—there is no real problem. It’s fabricated. Just made up out of thin air.
On Reading and the Fullness of Life Link to heading
So, a question from Igor: Igor once asked a question about mail, and in the answer, the concept of the fullness of life was used to describe the benefits of reading — clearly in a positive sense. What does it mean for you to live a full life? Does it mean contributing to society, or is that aspect something that should be set aside right away? Of course, we are all, in one way or another, integrated into society through our life activities and probably bring either some benefit or harm, depending on our actions. But for me, that’s not the criterion for a full life. Or is it necessary to go further? Igor writes: Is it absolutely necessary to engage in self-improvement, read books, listen to classical music, go to the pool and the gym? I sense some irony in this list. Or is it enough to simply indulge yourself in every available way, fighting off boredom, trying all the food in the world, visiting every continent, skydiving, and smoking weed? About whom would you say, ‘Ah, brother, you’re not living fully enough’?
Dear namesake! I wouldn’t say that about anyone, because the fullness of life is a strictly subjective feeling. You see, a person who, for example… Well, take the classic example of Perelman, yes, the famous mathematician, a mathematical genius. I don’t know how much we can really know about his life, but as far as I understand, this is someone who didn’t, so to speak, do sports. As far as is known, he didn’t skydive. He didn’t travel the world or visit all the continents. His entire life was devoted to mathematics. I believe he lived a full life. So it’s subjective. You can, of course, deprive yourself of some areas of life, but fully unfold in another — and that will be fullness, the fullness of life. It’s a subjective sensation.
And that’s why, from the outside, this whole “Ah, brother, you’re not living fully enough” thing only makes sense if I see that the person themselves feels that lack. That’s how it works, you see? If someone, for example, is fully immersed in music — lives through music, right? And maybe they haven’t tasted all the gourmet dishes, or rare wines, or traveled to a hundred countries. But they live through music — and if they unfold through that and feel fulfilled — that is the feeling, first and foremost.
Another matter is that this feeling should be sustainable. It sometimes leads to certain crises, because creativity is impossible without ups and downs. But that very self-unfolding — that is the fullness of life. I emphasize again — it’s an internal feeling. That’s why the outside view and the claim that someone’s not living a full life — that’s absurd. In this sense, no one is a judge to anyone else.
It’s a different matter if I see, say, someone close to me, and I know — I know this person suffers from having unmet needs, from not realizing something within them. Then, yes — then I might say something. But only to someone close.
Are stupid people to blame for being stupid? Link to heading
A similar question was posed by Viktor Shipulin: As a sociologist, do you think that stupid people are to blame for being stupid? An acquaintance of mine feels sorry for the so-called “vatniks” and ignoramuses in general, believing that they are this way because of their stupidity. But he argues that they are not to blame for their stupidity, since not everyone is born equal. As we know, nature endows people with either innate intelligence or the capacity to acquire it through life experience. Education doesn’t reach everyone. How valid is this view?
Dear Viktor, since the question is quite abstract and theoretical, I’ll have to be a bit pedantic. Let’s start by defining some terms. What is guilt? What is culpability? These are different things. What is a stupid person? So before we begin thinking about this, I suggest we define the terms. Guilt is a subjective feeling over a bad action, right? That is, guilt involves pangs of conscience — it’s an internal, subjective experience over something bad one has done that caused harm to others. Or sometimes even to oneself, though in that case it’s more often frustration rather than guilt.
But culpability is something entirely different. It’s the objective acknowledgment of responsibility for a crime. And stupidity? You ask what I mean by stupidity? Do you mean the uneducated? I think stupidity is something else. An educated person can still be stupid. Stupidity is inadequacy — first and foremost, inadequacy. A stupid person can be a professor, an academician, anyone. It’s a person who acts inappropriately, inadequately. So if a person commits a stupid, that is, inadequate act, then they are to blame. Stupidity does not absolve one of responsibility. Stupidity does not absolve one of responsibility — just as ignorance of the law does not absolve one from liability. For example, there used to be a common belief that a drunk person couldn’t be held accountable. But no — in fact, being drunk can actually be an aggravating factor. The same goes for stupidity. Stupidity does not absolve one of responsibility. So the version you or your acquaintance describe, dear Viktor, seems to me to be invalid.
Viewer Comments Link to heading
So the comments about the color are in response to my request regarding comments. You and I are on opposite sides of the screen. Thank God, on the same side of good. Comments become available only after the livestream ends. You probably can’t see this. But your moderators surely know.
Dear viewer, after your comment I understand even less what you’re talking about. What comments are you referring to exactly? If you’re talking about comments in the YouTube channel’s chat, I know for certain that they’re visible to everyone — to anyone who joins the chat, because there’s an ongoing conversation there. Unfortunately, there are very few comments about what’s happening on the stream, but lots of greetings and back-and-forths. People are rude to each other and respond — in other words, there’s active communication. So those comments are clearly visible to everyone.
But if you’re referring to the comments under the stream, then yes, those aren’t visible during the broadcast. But what’s the issue here? First of all — and I’ve said this before — I’m a computer idiot, so I don’t know whether it’s even possible to enable those during the stream. Second, I don’t quite understand why people who want to react in some way can’t just respond in the chat — or, I don’t know... Anyway, long story short — I’m not sure. But I’ll remember your question. I’ll consult with the system administrator — maybe there’s something we can do, some button we can press to make it work the way you want.
On Shells and Tanks – Cleaning the Information Bubble Link to heading
Bastard Jones writes: Igor, my apologies, some corrections just came in again. Today, Leviyev on Plushchev’s show refuted the claim and reported that, according to his team’s estimates, the Russian defense industry is producing not 1,500 tanks, as has been claimed, but only about 300. Also, according to shell manufacturers, they will close the year at 2 million. Russia will produce the same amount, according to military experts, plus around 800,000 122mm shells. So the question is — whom should we believe, if your previous statements turn out to be wrong? How do you correct your information bubble? I’m used to trusting your information, but it seems you were just pulling it from headlines.
Well, dear Bastard Jones, I want to tell you that I never just rely on headlines. And if something from sources I trust turns out to be inaccurate, I try to correct it. So I don’t have a problem with that.
Comments from Max Link to heading
Several comments from Max. Max writes: I have a different idea about why Putin started the war. Any stable world order reflects the balance of power at the time it was established. Since that balance is constantly shifting, any world order is always temporary. Right now, we’re witnessing a crisis of the current one. What was the USSR in the previous world order? A superpower — science, art, economy, ideology, military strength. And what did Putin bring Russia into the 21st century with? No science, no art, no ideas. A banana gas station, a historical bankrupt. Only military power remains. I believe Putin started the war to trade that military power for a new global position for Russia. The scenario, as I see it, was something like this: with minimal resistance, Kyiv is taken in three days, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and Belarus are annexed. Some kind of Union 2.0 is created. Mobilization is carried out in the occupied countries, and Union 2.0 approaches the EU borders with a couple of million soldiers. In this situation, you don’t even need to fight. Democratic countries are structured in such a way that they would themselves choose the Polish dream, the Lithuanian dream, an alternative for Romania, and so on. With minimal effort, Russia goes from historic loser to European hegemon. This brings to mind his NATO ultimatum. The scenario might vary, but I’m describing the imperial logic — it’s a tool. Is it an attempt to shift the direction of the historical process from further degradation to the return of superpower status? I’m sure that today China and other players are also thinking about changing the world order. And as for Putin miscalculating — well, who hasn’t?
Dear Max, I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to convince anyone of. You seem to be emphasizing certain goals that might indeed have existed. I’m not arguing with that. It’s entirely possible that this was the plan in Putin’s head. Or maybe it wasn’t. Maybe it was something else entirely. But if you’re saying this is “imperial logic,” then I don’t quite understand what the argument is. With whom are you even disagreeing? It’s definitely not with me.
About the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) Link to heading
Another comment from Max. As for the CPRF, in order to accept this version, I would have to agree that political parties exist in Russia — not just parties, but opposition parties. If that’s true, then the pool has water, and “smart voting” makes sense. In reality, the smart ones were those who promoted it — and they were right. With all due respect, I can’t agree with that. Because why did the CPRF voice it and not United Russia? Precisely for that reason — there are no parties, no difference, nothing. That’s the key point. The CPRF is just a test balloon, a probe. If that position hadn’t been approved in the Kremlin, it never would’ve been voiced. If someone had blurted out something unauthorized on their own, they would’ve been spoken to. That same evening, they would’ve come out and said that’s not what they meant. But that didn’t happen.
Dear Max, here I just want to express my personal conviction that you are wrong. The picture you paint — that they’re all puppets assigned roles who only move when someone pulls the strings — is a mistake, a clear mistake. That’s a very simplistic, caricatured view. Anyone who’s spent even a little time around that kitchen knows it’s not like that. These puppets you describe — hanging in the air, dependent solely on the puppet master’s strings — that’s not how it works. The CPRF, for example, has a base — and a significant one at that.
And that electorate doesn’t mean this is a proper party or that we have real elections. No. It’s a kind of structure. The CPRF is a structure that has the appearance of a party, the smell of a party, but it’s not a party in the Western sense — one that possesses political autonomy, seeks power, and so on. No. But it does have some party-like features — in particular, its own habitual electorate that supports it and actually casts ballots for it. The process is happening.
And the CPRF has its own electorate. So does LDPR — it also has its own electorate. The difference between our views is this: they have a corridor of permissible behavior. They’re not puppets being yanked and made to make sounds like a machine. No — they speak for themselves. Within that corridor, they have a degree of freedom. So your claim that “there’s no difference” is a profound mistake. The CPRF is quite different from United Russia or New People, for instance. They’re Stalinists. They long for the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, in United Russia, there are plenty of people who don’t share those views.
So it’s wrong to say there’s no difference. But none of that means that “smart voting” was a smart idea. It wasn’t — and for one reason only: not because there’s no difference between them (there is, and it’s significant), but because they are all enemies of democracy. It’s absolutely impossible to vote for the outright fascists from LDPR. These are different kinds of totalitarian ideologies. In one case — corrupt officials, in another — Stalinists, in the third — fascists (LDPR), and so on. They differ. But it’s still a choice between different kinds of evil, and that makes no sense.
And the most important thing is this: especially in the current situation, all these parties support the war. Does that mean there’s no difference between them? No, it doesn’t. Does it mean that voting for them is pointless? Yes, it does — because they all support the war. That’s all there is to it. So voting was a foolish idea from the start. But that does not mean there’s no difference between these parties.
Fascism and Communism Link to heading
Another comment from Max: I don’t know anything about clan infighting in Russia — only what Gudkov, Gallyamov, and others say. But what if it’s not clan warfare, but a reign of oprichnina? The security forces have been given the green light, and they’re on the prowl. In that case, it’s not a sign of Putin’s weakness. Every such incident increases fear among the rest — and fear is literally the glue holding the regime together. I agree with you that it’s not a sign of Putin’s weakness. The difference in our perceptions of reality lies in the fact that you believe there is clan warfare, and that the siloviki are also divided among clans. There are no abstract security forces. Within the FSB board sit representatives of various clans. That’s how it works. Doctor.
Dear Alexander, if I’m not mistaken, the flag of Nazi Germany was also red. I think that fascism, National Socialism, is a variety of communism — or is it the other way around? Now, I assume this is a response to when I was asked why fascists are “brown” and communists are “red.” I explained that already and won’t repeat it. The brown refers to the shirts of fascist squads — hence “brownshirts.”
As for the claim that fascism is a kind of communism — that’s a mistake, of course. A clear mistake. Because classical communism is based on internationalism. Marx’s communism, Lenin’s communism, Antonio Gramsci’s communism — they’re all internationalist. It’s a different matter that later on it degraded — first into Leninism, then into Stalinism. And in its Stalinist form, yes, nationalism appeared — specifically, Russian imperial chauvinism. But originally, communism is not nationalist. In its classical form, communism is internationalist.
Fascism, on the other hand, is always nationalism. Always Nazism. Fascists hated communists and exterminated them. The German Communist Party was banned by Hitler in 1933. After the Reichstag fire, communists were declared enemies of the state and persecuted — mass arrests began, prisons, concentration camps, executions, and so on. So, no, it’s not the same.
It’s like in biology — convergence. In evolution, animals from completely different not just species but even classes — for example, dolphins and sharks — can look similar in body shape. But that doesn’t mean they’re related. They belong to different classes of animals. The same applies here. The fact that there are similarities is convergence. These ideologies, being deeply totalitarian, develop some similarities — but that’s where it ends.
About Nationalists Link to heading
I’m not with Gabriel. What’s wrong with nationalists? Nationalists believe that each country should govern itself without outside interference. Nationalism advocates for the creation and preservation of a unified national identity based on shared— but it cuts off there.
So, if I understand correctly, dear Yanis, you have no disagreements with Putin, with China? They also advocate for doing whatever they want internally. I mean, in terms of foreign interference. So they believe in doing anything inside their country—like destroying people. In China, destroying Muslims; here, in Russia, destroying Azerbaijanis, because they are of a different nationality. So we don’t want anyone from outside to interfere. That’s your position. Got it.
And what about the fact that nationalists believe the rights of their own people are superior to the rights of other peoples? And what should those do who live in the country and have a different national identity? You say you support maintaining a unified national identity. Sorry, but if we’re talking about a civic nation, then a civic nation doesn’t imply national identity in the ethnic sense. You see, nationalists advocate for ethnic identity. And they believe the ethnic identity of one nation is superior to another. If that’s not the case, then there’s no nationalism, you see?
So if someone lives, for example, in a country called Russia and considers themselves Jewish, while Russian nationalists believe that Russia is for Russians—see? That’s what nationalism is. Russian nationalists believe Russia is for Russians. And if I’m Jewish or Ukrainian, then does that mean Russia isn’t for me? That’s nationalism. Of course, you can play with words and say that nationalism is… well, then there’s nothing left of nationalism at all. Nationalism is: Russia for Russians.
You ask what’s wrong with nationalists? Well, the fact that I feel uncomfortable living in a country where “Russia for Russians” becomes the main state principle. I consider myself Russian, but I feel uncomfortable in a country where the core state idea is Russia for Russians. I’d immediately wear a badge on my chest that says I’m Georgian, I’m Ukrainian, I’m Jewish, and so on. That’s what’s wrong with nationalists.
About Cultural Degradation Link to heading
Tatyana. Dear Alexander! Following up on the cultural issue. When I said that you have a poor understanding of what’s going on in Russia in terms of cultural degradation, it wasn’t meant as a reproach. We ourselves hardly understand it here. Go without contact with society for a week, and you’ll already see another round of negative growth. These days, Russian culture is often bashed by anyone who feels like it. And whose mill is being turned by this bashing water? Is it not the mill of those who try to divide the population, saying something like: “They haven’t read Pushkin—and good, he’s just some pepper, he’s bad”? Like, “no need to read him—fine.” But Pushkin is far more than just about imperialists. As are all of our other greats. And what’s so imperialist about the author of the line “I hate your throne!”? They’ve really picked some scapegoats for all sins. If people read and thought more, there would be fewer wars. And yes, the theory of propaganda methods—that’s interesting. I was using that as an example.
That was yesterday, in yesterday’s stream—we were discussing how one could blame culture for what’s happening. Because, well, those who are causing the chaos—they haven’t read, they didn’t read Pushkin. I was explaining this very theory—the working theory of two-step, two-tiered communication. That’s it. I talked about it yesterday, I won’t repeat myself. Fine, point taken.
About Ukraine’s NATO Movement in the Constitution Link to heading
Olga Donetskaya. Olga is a sponsor of our channel, for which we are very grateful. Some of our listeners, writes Olga Donetskaya, either don’t know or don’t understand why Ukraine added the goal of joining NATO to its Constitution. After all, before 2014—that is, before the annexation of Crimea and the hybrid war unleashed by Russia in Donbas—Ukraine was a non-nuclear and neutral state. And only after these events were those changes made to Ukraine’s Constitution. Realizing what a threat Russia poses. Russia to the country’s security and sovereignty. And it just infuriates me when Putin justifies his aggression by referring to Ukraine’s declaration of neutral status. Does he really not understand cause and effect? And yet people listen to him and believe him. It would be good if in your streams you spoke about this, explained more often to the audience this lie of Putin’s. After all, new listeners from among Russians are joining, and they don’t know this.
Well, I try—when there’s a reason, when there’s a need—I try, as much as possible, to explain what’s really happening and why.
Remark About the Russian Language in Ukraine Link to heading
So, Margarita Karlson This is more of a remark than a question. But I’d like you to read it out loud if possible—maybe many will agree with me. I’ve noticed that you’ve tried more than once to make it clear to the slow-witted that there’s no oppression of the right to speak Russian in Ukraine. I completely agree with that. The thing is, back in the distant ’80s, I studied in Kyiv, and of course after graduation I visited—friends and memories remained there. So, my last visit to Kyiv was in 2010. The only thing I noticed in Boryspil was more signs in Ukrainian. That’s really it. I think it’s not worth explaining this to people again and again. Don’t waste your time and health. If someone thinks a sovereign country can just be attacked like that because supposedly Russians are being oppressed, then everything’s already clear with those people. I was just floored by one of our subscriber’s comments that if they hadn’t banned speaking Russian, then the “special military operation” wouldn’t have started. Complete nonsense. There are plenty of the “offended” in Estonia too, and in Finland lately—pensioners are really upset about the closed border. After all, it’s become hard to go to Russia to collect their pensions, and many hadn’t even worked a day in Finland.
Well then, nothing to comment on.
“What’s the Use of Us Russians?” Link to heading
Expensive. Writes Igor. Hello. In your recent stream, in response to a young woman, if I remember correctly, you bitterly remarked, “what’s the use of us, of Russians.” But I don’t see it that way. Maybe I’ll repeat my idea about cells with command centers abroad. But I’ll say again: Ukraine needs information right now. In war, it’s a very important resource. And this resource can be provided by Russians—of course, not just those who are for peace, but those who are for victory. Ukraine doesn’t have many of those—not the majority. But if you count from the overall number, I think a couple of hundred thousand could be found. Information is needed about factories, logistics, the internal state of the security apparatus, war criminals—where they are, what they’re doing. So we shouldn’t just wave it all off. By the way, I recently found a suspicious little factory near Vladyka. Specializes in radio electronics. Call the job ad and you’ll immediately get it. I’m not suggesting you call, Igor, of course, dear fool.
I agree with literally everything—except one thing. You see? What to do? Well, two points. First, making our channel a sort of communicator for sabotage—that would be suicidal. Not because I’m afraid. I have nothing to fear, I’m already declared an enemy of the people by who knows whom. I have nothing to lose, so to speak. But putting people at risk—that’s unacceptable. That’s a different kind of work. Now, whether such cells are being created—I think they are. Yes, I do. When I say there’s no use from us for Ukraine, I’m of course exaggerating. Of course, there is use from those people fighting for Ukraine with weapons in hand. Of course, there is some use. I’m not totally devaluing my own work. There’s some use from people like me, too. But you see, that conversation was about giving Ukraine’s leadership advice to somehow restructure and start deliberately working with Russians. With whom, and how? That, I still don’t fully understand. Recruitment? They’re doing that. What else? Handing out money? For what? That’s unclear too.
So I’m absolutely sure that Ukraine’s security service is working to create some kind of support points inside Russia. But that’s not public work, that’s the work of intelligence. That’s what they do. Supporting some opposition channels—I don’t think that’s necessary. In any case, if Ukraine ever loses its mind and offers me money to support the channel, I won’t take a single cent. Better they use that money to buy a drone. That’s why I don’t really understand what support from Ukraine’s leadership for some kind of Russian opposition is supposed to look like. I really don’t get it. That’s why… Well, what you’re writing—I think it’s already being done. That’s intelligence work.
Closing Words Link to heading
So? Dear friends, we’re wrapping up here. Yes, definitely wrapping up. Thank you so much to everyone who asked questions, who left comments. Please take care of yourselves. A quick reminder: most likely, we’ll manage to do the fifth episode of the “Trumpophrenia” program today at 8:00 PM. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves—I beg you! Freedom for Alexander Skobov, for all Russian political prisoners, and for Ukrainian captives! See you at 8:00 PM! Goodbye!
Source: https://youtu.be/Uv9ffeSl_OM